nwnfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Fire storm
Damage Same of Flame strike. Despite what the description say (Half of the damage caused by the spell is divine and the other half is fire-based), damage is rolled once per every target, but it's applied twice to each of them, allowing two reflex saves: the first time it's divinedamage, the second it's fire damage. This mean the real damage is 2d6 per caster level to a maximum of 40d6 with 20 caster levels. Could someone write this in the article? I'm not really sure of my english. -- Simoncr1s 06:47 (Italy), 16 February 2010 * It's two applications of half damage not two applications of full damage. One save for the fire half; one save for the divine half. WhiZard 19:42, February 16, 2010 (UTC) :* Nope, I know this thing since the first time I used empowered Fire storm with a druid with 20 caster level: you can do around 180 damage [(20d6 + 1/2) * 2] if a target fail both saves. You can see it even in the script: roll "d6(nCasterLevel)", enter metamagic conditions and two different saves with the same full damage. The damage of the same spell on nwn2 is lesser, because this doesn't happen there. -- Simoncr1s 05:00 (Italy), 17 February 2010 ::* On the ReflexAdjustedDamage() lines you will notice the damage is halved in the argument. For the sake of script I'll go through this one line at a time. if (nMetaMagic METAMAGIC_MAXIMIZE) { nDamage = 6 * nCasterLevel;//Damage is at max //Here you get the full 120 } else if (nMetaMagic METAMAGIC_EMPOWER) { nDamage = nDamage + (nDamage/2);//Damage/Healing is +50% //Here you multiply 20d6 by 1.5, maximum of 180 } //Save versus both holy and fire damage nDamage2 = GetReflexAdjustedDamage(nDamage/2, oTarget, GetSpellSaveDC(), SAVING_THROW_TYPE_DIVINE); //Here the damage is halved and then that is put against a reflex save for half that damage-''' '''// that is a succeeded save will be dealt 1/4 damage nDamage = GetReflexAdjustedDamage(nDamage/2, oTarget, GetSpellSaveDC(), SAVING_THROW_TYPE_FIRE); //Here the damage is halved and then that is put against a reflex save for half that damage-''' '''// that is a succeeded save will be dealt 1/4 damage :::WhiZard 13:50, February 17, 2010 (UTC) ::* Your (Simoncr1s') numbers do not support what you claim: (20d6 + 50%)*2 has a maximum value of (120 + 50%)*2 (120 + 60)*2 180*2 360. You would be seeing twice the damage you've seen if it was not halved. (And WhiZard covered where the division occurs in the script -- it is not "full damage" in the saving throw lines.) --The Krit 21:30, February 18, 2010 (UTC) :::* Ahah no one of us told the truth until now... The Krit, 20d6 won't never be 120 damage, you have to consider the average: 20d6 = about 60 damage. In the script, I didn't see in the "GetReflexAdjustedDamage" the damage is halfed. Indeed, I saw the mistake isn't there, the mistake is here: if(nCasterLevel > 20) { nCasterLevel 20; } :::: " " mean the damage is not capped... I admit it, I tried just with a pure (40) druid before post here, I really belived 20 druid levels were enough for all these years. -- Simoncr1s 06:21, February 19, 2010 (UTC) ::::* Good find. I'll add in the note. WhiZard 06:40, February 19, 2010 (UTC) ::::* I object to the statement "no one of us told the truth until now". (I can accept the excuse that you are not good with English, but I still object to the phrasing.) That implies we were trying to hide the truth. That's not the case. At least not for WhiZard and myself. A level 20 caster can do 180 damage with an empowered fire storm. It's very not likely, but it is possible. A level 20 caster doing 40d6 damage with a fire storm is impossible. No matter how unlikely something is, possible beats impossible. ::::: If you saw this damage with a level 40 caster instead of a level 20 caster, then you should have said so. That would have opened up other possibilities, such as the list of bugged spells I've been building. (This particular bug made that list a while ago.) --The Krit 09:28, February 19, 2010 (UTC) ::::* Something else that might be part of the language barrier: "you can do around 180 damage" just means the 180 damage was done once. If you were seeing this multiple times (presumably with a higher-level caster than stated), then a better way to express that would be "you can regularly do around 180 damage". Sorry if the language is being an issue. Then again, that's one reason I'm mentioning this -- so you can know for next time. --The Krit 23:23, February 19, 2010 (UTC) :::::* No! I didn't mean someone of us was trying to hide the truth, I thought I said correctly what I saw and I meant no one of us found why I saw all those damage ... really sorry for my english, thanks for the lesson. -- Simoncr1s 06:57, February 20, 2010 (UTC) ::::::* No problem (and it helped that you made it clear that English is not your native language). I believe an English phrase for what you meant would be "none of us had the whole story before". I must be slipping since I was unable to come up with that right away. --The Krit 07:40, March 2, 2010 (UTC) 2m safe zone, or not? Looking at the spell script, I see the line that creates the 2m safe zone described in the in-game text has been commented out. (Line 60 in a plain 1.69 module, no haks or overrides.) Does anyone know if this 2m safe zone was implemented in some other way? Or if it was removed for a reason? Thanks. BCH (talk) 22:40, April 20, 2013 (UTC) * I don't see a safe zone described in the in-game text. (Are you thinking about meteor swarm?) I don't know why those lines are even in the script, but they -- commented out -- go back to the original (pre-patch) game files. (Maybe someone at BioWare got this spell confused with meteor swarm when originally scripting it?) --The Krit (talk) 05:24, May 13, 2013 (UTC) ** Frustratingly, three weeks is long enough for me to have forgotten where I saw that and why I asked. While going through most of the spell scripts, I saw several instances where it looked to me like someone at Bioware was doing significant copying and pasting when creating spell scripts, but I can't see strong evidence of that in this case. I'm pretty sure my question was a mistake in any event, but it's one I'm glad I made, as it tells me I need to take a closer look at similar spells, and I will probably want to change my module's script to re-include that safe zone. Thanks! BCH (talk) 10:25, May 13, 2013 (UTC)